Sure. When I've lived in solid Republican districts, I often voted in the Republican primaries for the worst of the bunch.
i voted for Joe. he's the one i know the most about...and if i only had these people to choose our next president from, i think he would be my choice...but admittedly, i'm unfamiliar with the substance of many of these candidates.
yeah...that shouldn't surprise you. i'm curious..on dean...do you guys see him as a clinton figure? the relatively obscure no-name governor who comes up and take the election from the incumbent who had a sizable lead? is that the model you're looking at?? or is there more of substance that you really like about the guy?
I would love to see Dean win it. It will make W's reelection that much easier. None of them are viable candidates at this point in time. The Democrats have a *long* way to go before they are even in the same league as W.
I hated Clinton. I like Dean because he appears to be tough. He is not afraid to disagree with a popular incumbent. Because he is not fighting over the middle, but rather trying to energize his own party. That's what the Republicans did, and it worked. Because he was aginst the war, before it was fasionable. Because of his record on gay rights and health care. I'm not a deficit hawk, but I believe he has some support because of that too. By the way, I don't like him on guns or the death penalty. The only one I agree with on everything is Al Sharpton, but you know... he has no experience and no one takes him seriously, etc etc.
I figure the only Dems w/ a chance of getting my vote are Kucinich, Kerry, and Dean. I voted for Dean b/c Kucinich is only a recent convert to the pro-choice side and Kerry voted for the war. But wait... There is another...
http://www.draftgore.com/ By running, Gore could help Dems define themselves July 6, 2003 BY WILLIAM O'ROURKE Al Gore should reconsider his decision not to run for the Democratic presidential nomination for 2004. Why? Look around at what is happening to the Democrats since Gore bowed out last December: the party splintering into its demographic pieces, name-calling among the jostling group running, conflicting and contradictory policies being touted. A large field of contenders is hardly a pretty sight. Bob Dole in 1996 emerged from a sizable Republican crowd and the primary season left Dole looking dazed and over-extended. George W. Bush in 2000 employed his own shock and awe fund-raising campaign during the primaries and the marginals dropped out early. Bush had only to fight off John McCain, using the state of South Carolina as the site of McCain's last stand. The Republican base had spoken and Bush sailed into the nomination. Indeed, Bush was less beaten up in the primary season than was Al Gore. Bill Clinton served as his most stiff competition, not the other Bill--Bill Bradley--insofar as Clinton's baggage hounded Gore throughout the primaries and the general election. This time around there is no front-runner in the large Democratic field. The fact that Howard Dean--two months ago a curious long shot--is now considered a leading contender shows the lack of heft available. Joe Lieberman has revealed himself to be what he was: a decent prospect for vice president. John Kerry, the early pick of party insiders, might end up being a strong finisher, because he has not shown much speed out of the box. But Kerry has always seemed a little shop-worn and regional as a candidate. His flirtations with the national ticket in the past were tentative. He likely peaked in 2000, just missing being Gore's vice presidential pick. Richard Gephardt is another perennial bridesmaid. Part of Howard Dean's insurgency seems to be his fresh aspect: a governor who sort of looks presidential, though he lacks Bill Clinton's warm touch and often appears brusque and autocratic. Given the uncollegial mud-slinging among the candidates, doing the Republicans' work for free, cynics could be forgiven for thinking that the Republican National Committee may be donating money to some of the Democratic contenders in order to keep them in the ring for as long as possible. Some Democrats are so distressed they hope to enlist a general, Wesley Clark. By the time a candidate emerges next summer, it is likely the party will be so at odds with itself that whatever push for unity that comes afterward will fall short. Optimists keep pointing out that George W.'s father looked unbeatable at this point in his first term. But presuming the two cases are parallel is wishful thinking. There are many reasons why, but I'll mention just one: Ross Perot. If Gore had chosen to run again, he would have done his party a great service, even if he ultimately lost. Whereas, if the Democratic nominee, other than Gore, loses to Bush in 2004, he will have set the party back in terms of the presidency for perhaps a generation. Gore could, finally, run a strong, free-wheeling, pure campaign, stating forthrightly what he and the Democratic Party stand for. All the present candidates, including Dean, squirm around tough questions, not wanting to alienate the so-called swing voter. The current candidates have to pretend to run as if they can win, so their vacillations are to be expected, if not tolerated. On the other hand, Gore could eschew that. He won the popular vote once already. He may not be able to win it again, but he certainly could make it clear how the Democratic Party is different from the Republican Party, how he is different from Bush, which would help the party in 2008. Thanks to a press corps that liked George W. more than they liked Al, and to the nattering campaign of Ralph Nader, turning Democrats green--not with envy but motion sickness--that difference was sufficiently blurred in 2000. Gore would remind the electorate of all the things that should not be forgotten. Unfortunately, President Bush's weaknesses are found in the past, not, alas, in the future.
I'm not really sure you want that. Say what you want about the man, but he did beat Bush in the popular vote, has shown since the election that he's not just a stone figure (ala Dole), and has largely kept out of the spotlight, something the voters may appreciate. There's no telling right now what will happen in 17 months. If everything keeps going the same way, Bush may be in some trouble. You'd be hard pressed to argue against Gore being the best chance for the Dems if that happens.
I'm not an Al fan, (and I wish I could vote for Edwards twice in this damned BBS poll ), but I will say this with confidence: I truly believe, in my heart of hearts, that Albert would have done something completely different with the unprecedented internationally good will and sympathy that came our way after 9/11. For better or worse, we would probably be acting with an amazingly vast international collaboration at this point. Maybe it would be useless, but man oh man would it be different.
